Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina


US Rulers think they can win a Nuclear War

Filed under: Uncategorized — grypa666 @ 04:28

PB: Żydłactfo myśli już tak od wieeeelu lat … i gówno. Atak atomowy jednym chociażby ładunkiem na Rosję skończyłby się Amargeddonem: Rosja wystrzeliłaby prewencyjnie swój nuklearny arsenał na USrael i ż-Zachód. Oni wiedzą to doskonale, ale są albo szaleni albo bawią się w politykę sraszenia.

Z ż-ISIS zostały strzępy, muślim pomyśli 10 razy zanim zaciągnie się, okrzyki ko-religionistów Allachu Akbar z padającymi ruskimi precyzjonkami utkwiły im na zawsze w pamięci. Muślimy są chojraki w kupie i jak ich durniów żydłak czy jaki inny fanatyk prowadzi… Werbowniki żydłackie nie mają już  lekko, muślimy zaczynają rozumieć, co to ż-wahabizm.. . a Putin jak zechce to im więcej zapłaci i przejdą na stronę Rosji, tak jak stało się z Czecznią.


From: Peter Myers
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 8:02 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: U.S. Rulers think they can win a Nuclear War – John Spritzler

U.S. Rulers think they can win a Nuclear War – John Spritzler

NOTE: Pat Buchanan’s article Establishment Panic: Ruling class fears the
people won’t accept its political legitimacy is at

Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The …

(1) Hillary’s War policy includes US attack on Russian airbase in Syria
– Anshel Pfeffer (Haaretz)
(2) Russian aerial defenses in Syria restrict the Israeli Air Force
(3) U.S. Rulers think they can win a Nuclear War – John Spritzler
(4) Funny how all the architects of the Iraq War endorsed Hillary
(5) Royal Air Force Pilots given the OK to shoot down Russian jets over
Syria, in defense
(6) NATO military build-up on Russia’s borders
(7) Neocons enacted 9/11 to bring chaos to MidEast, destroying enemies
of Israel – Paul Craig Roberts
(8) Erdogan complicates US plans for Syia, after US-backed Coup attempt
– Israel Shamir
(9) Soros’ Avaaz mobilizes Americans abroard to vote for Hillary

(1) Hillary’s War policy includes US attack on Russian airbase in Syria
– Anshel Pfeffer (Haaretz)


Hillary Clinton advocated a no-fly zone over Aleppo in Syria. But what’ll happen when Putin’s advanced missiles lock on a U.S. fighter?

Hillary’s War: Can a No-fly Zone Over Syria Work?

If coordinated effectively, the move might save the lives of tens of
thousands of civilians and create a new environment for a diplomatic

Anshel Pfeffer Oct 19, 2016 9:11 AM

At the second presidential debate on Sunday, Democratic candidate
Hillary Clinton said: “I, when I was Secretary of State, advocated, and
I advocate today, a no-fly zone and safe zone.” And if it wasn’t clear
she actually meant it, she added: “We need some leverage with the
Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table
for a diplomatic resolution unless there is some leverage over them.”

What Clinton was advocating was a U.S.-led military intervention to stop
Russian and Syrian warplanes bombing civilians in rebel-held areas like
Aleppo, even if it meant clashing with Russia. That’s what a no-fly zone

As secretary of state when the Syrian war began, Clinton knows all this
perfectly well. She’s aware of all the implications. Perhaps she was
taking such a position to create distance between herself and her
Republic opponent Donald Trump, who’s in favor of the Assad regime
remaining and takes the Kremlin’s line that in Syria “Russia is killing
ISIS” rather than pulverizing civilians who just happen to live in
rebel-held areas. […]

The first consideration is timing. The next president will be sworn in
on January 20. Assuming it’s Clinton, she will already have an
experienced national security team ready to take over and a clear idea
of her foreign policy. Theoretically, she could choose to move very
quickly. At the current rate of Russian bombing, little may remain by
then of eastern Aleppo, and the quarter of a million people still there
will have been killed or will have fled. […]

In Syria, there is no prospect of a Security Council resolution, as
Russia, which has already vetoed five resolutions condemning the Assad
regime, would undoubtedly veto a no-fly zone. There would also be legal
issues, as the Assad regime is still the internationally recognized
government and Russia’s forces are there at Assad’s invitation.

To justify acting without UN backing, the administration would say that
the Assad regime has lost any claim to be Syria’s legitimate government
due to its war crimes and because it has lost control of most of Syria’s
territory and the support of most of its people. To bolster those
claims, it would seek the support of key allies to take part in a
coalition enforcing the no-fly zone. The obvious candidates are the over
30 nations currently supporting Operation Inherent Resolve led by the
United States already fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

Of these nations, the key Western allies are Britain and France. […]

The third key ally would be Turkey […] Sill, it’s unclear whether
Turkey still holds to its pro-no-fly-zone positions. Following the
failed coup in July, U.S.-Turkish relations have suffered a downturn as
Ankara demands that Washington extradite Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen,
who it accuses of orchestrating the coup. Meanwhile, Turkey has drawn
closer to Russia, with two recent meetings between presidents Recep
Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin. […]

The Assad regime’s air force is in no condition to defy the USAF and
other Western air forces with its handful of inferior MiG-21s and
MiG-29s. Russia’s contingent is better-equipped of course but consists
of only around 40 fixed-wing combat aircraft (and about 20 helicopters)
all based at Khmeimim Air Base near Latakia. Most of these are
ground-attack planes like the Sukhoi Su-25, poorly equipped to survive
air-to-air encounters.

According to most assessments, Russia has only about 10 dedicated
air-superiority fighters in Syria – a mixture of Sukhoi Su-30 and
Su-35s. These are Russia’s best fighters, comparable to Western F-15s,
Typhoons and Rafales. But they would be outnumbered and without the
massive array of support aircraft the American-led coalition would have.

They thus would have little chance of resisting for more than a few
hours. They would also be limited by the fact that their one base in the
region – Khmeimin (the other Syrian air bases are too dilapidated to
sustain advanced operations) – has a sole runway that can be disabled by
an American airstrike. […]

A no-fly zone over Syria would “require war with Syria and Russia,” Gen.
Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned last
month. In 2013, Clinton herself said in one of the emails hacked by the
Russians and published by WikiLeaks that “to have a no-fly zone you have
to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in
populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so
we’re not putting our pilots at risk – you’re going to kill a lot of

While these eventualities must be taken into account, they don’t
necessarily have to happen if rules of engagement are established and
followed. The Russians and the Assad regime could simply decide not to
send aircraft into the no-fly zone and avoid being shot down. And their
anti-aircraft batteries could refrain from locking on to the coalition’s
aircraft and avoid being attacked.

Either way, if Russia responds in Syria or backs down, it will be
humiliated. This may be the “leverage” Clinton spoke of that will force
Moscow to agree to a cease-fire including an enforceable commitment to
cease bombing civilian areas.

But Russia could respond in an operation against Ukraine or in an ever
bigger provocation against the West, against NATO members in the Baltic,
or intensify its cyberattacks on the United State beyond its current
hacking of the presidential election. Is diplomacy still possible to let
Russia climb down before it obliterates Aleppo? If so, Kerry’s unceasing
efforts have failed to find a way.

Acting with impunity

One of the main arguments against imposing a no-fly zone is that it
could dangerously escalate into a confrontation between nuclear powers.
The counterargument is that the West can’t let Russia leverage its
nuclear capability and act with impunity anywhere, and that if diplomacy
and sanctions have failed, the West must be prepared at some point to
use its much stronger military.

But where is that point? If the West failed to prevent Russia from
attacking Georgia in 2008, from attacking Ukraine and occupying Crimea
in 2014, and now won’t attack when Russia is killing thousands in Syria,
where is that point? Russia, with its rapidly shrinking economy, is
hardly in a position to open an all-out war with the United States
simply to keep Assad in power. And if Putin actually is capable of doing
so, all the more reason for blocking him sooner rather than later.

But if successful in the air, what effect would a no-fly zone have on
the ground? The casualty figures in Syria are hotly contested. According
to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 3,915 civilians were killed
in the first 12 months of Russia’s involvement in Syria. This is “only”
1 percent of around 400,000 killed, including fighters and civilians in
five and a half years of war in Syria.

But it doesn’t include those killed in the last few weeks in the bombing
of Aleppo, and it includes only confirmed victims. So the actual number
is likely to be much higher, especially when including people wounded
and later dying due to a lack of medical care caused by Russia’s
targeted bombing of medical centers. And there are the casualties caused
throughout the war by Assad’s airstrikes, a number almost certainly in
the tens of thousands.

A no-fly zone would save the lives of tens of thousands more civilians
who would be killed if the bombardments continued, but it wouldn’t end
the fighting and bloodshed. To do so, the no-fly zone must indeed be
used to create the leverage that would allow a more enforceable and
stable cease-fire than the previous failed ones.

Critics of a no-fly zone claim that it would create a vacuum on the
ground that would let the Islamic State and other jihadi groups take
control of Syria. This is an empty claim as ISIS is now on the back
foot; many of its forces have been killed or retreated to strongholds
around Raqqa and Mosul. A no-fly zone doesn’t have to mean diverting
forces attacking the Islamic State as part of Operation Inherent
Resolve. Neither is it a cover for “regime change” in Damascus.

It’s true that before Russian warplanes arrived in Syria in September
2015, the Assad regime was on the brink of collapse. But while Russia’s
operation hasn’t succeeded by any means in ending resistance to the
regime, it has significantly weakened the rebel groups that have largely
been on the defensive ever since. In the near future, and end to
airstrikes on rebel-held areas won’t be enough to let the rebels
threaten the regime, which in the last year has been reinforced by tens
of thousands of Iranian-led Shi’ite-militia fighters.

If Clinton is indeed serious about what she says and the United States
and its allies imposed a no-fly zone effectively, the move might save
the lives of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians and create a new
environment for reaching a diplomatic solution. It could also be the
move that finally checked Putin’s aggression in the region and elsewhere.

Israel on the sidelines

As in the past, Washington won’t be asking its closest ally in the
Middle East to join a military coalition there. For all the changes in
the region, Israel as an official member of a group of nations operating
in an Arab country is still unthinkable.

Israel would undoubtedly provide intelligence and other quiet
technological cooperation, but overt collaboration would be too much for
any “moderate” Arab countries in the coalition, even if they cooperate
with Israel on other matters. Israel would also be wary of any open
alliance with the coalition due to its successful coordination over the
last year with Russia.

Despite initial fears that the Russian presence would limit Israel’s own
operations against Hezbollah, a series of meetings between Benjamin
Netanyahu and Putin laid the foundations for an orderly “deconfliction”
process between the countries’ militaries. While the United States will
remain Israel’s most important strategic ally, this is one conflict that
Israel will resolutely keep out of. For once, this is something all
sides will be happy to agree on.

(2) Russian aerial defenses in Syria restrict the Israeli Air Force


New Russian systems in Syria track every Israeli fighter right on takeoff, thus limiting operational freedom against Hezbollah ● Deciphering Putin’s real intentions ● How Iran could be the big winner in Mosul.

Without Effort, Russia Restricted the Strongest Air Force in the Middle East

New Russian systems in Syria track every Israeli fighter right on
takeoff, thus limiting operational freedom against Hezbollah ?

Amos Harel Oct 23, 2016 9:02 AM

Over the past few weeks, Russia has finished beefing up its aerial
defenses in northern Syria. The Washington Post, after interviewing
American experts, published a map last week showing the estimated radius
of coverage of Russia’s S-300 and S-400 systems, which are bolstered by
anti-aircraft missiles on ships in the port of Tartus. The 380-kilometer
radius covers Lebanon, much of Turkey and Jordan, the eastern
Mediterranean until out beyond Cyprus, a bit of Iraq, and Israel all the
way to the northern Negev.

The paper said the Pentagon isn’t sure whether, if necessary, it could
penetrate these aerial defense systems, since the question hasn’t yet
arisen. Presumably, America has electronic warfare systems capable of
disrupting even dense anti-aircraft coverage. But the Post said Russia’s
coverage limits Washington’s ability not only to launch air strikes on
Syrian military targets, but also to create no-fly zones to protect
civilians, an idea both U.S. presidential candidates say they support.

Russia’s beefed-up deployment also affects Israel, which, according to
foreign media reports, has launched numerous air strikes on arms convoys
from Syria to Hezbollah in recent years. Based on the Washington Post’s
map, an Israeli plane couldn’t take off from Tel Nof airbase without
being tagged by Russian radar.

Ever since it destroyed Syria’s anti-aircraft systems in 1982, Israel’s
air force has enjoyed absolute aerial superiority (and therefore, almost
complete freedom of action) on the northern front. But that effectively
ended the moment Russia decided to beef up its aerial defenses around
Tartus. Almost without effort, the Russians managed to restrict the
strongest air force in the Middle East.

The limitations aren’t just military, but also diplomatic. Israel and
Russia have set up a mechanism to prevent clashes in Syrian airspace,
and Prime Minister  Benjamin Netanyahu has met with Russian President
Vladimir Putin four times over the last year to further that purpose.

Having no other choice, Netanyahu has nurtured his Russian romance. But
in reality, this romance is about as romantic as Donald Trump’s groping
of women. It’s a romance to which Israel was forced to consent once the
Russian bear decided to move into its backyard. […]

(3) U.S. Rulers think they can win a Nuclear War – John Spritzler


printer-friendly version. http://www.NewDemocracyWorld.org . Why U.S. Rulers Don’t Fear Nuclear WWIII with Russia. by John Spritzler. October 23, 2016. T he United States …

Why U.S. Rulers don’t fear Nuclear WWIII with Russia

by John Spritzler

October 23, 2016

The United States government has escalated the Cold War against Russia:
demonizing Putin as the new Hitler, imposing sanctions on Russian
leaders, implementing aggressive NATO military expansion to Russia’s
border including installing an anti-ballistic missile “defense” that is
actually a key component of an offensive nuclear strike, and threatening
to impose a no-fly zone in Syria that would entail shooting down Russian
aircraft. Many people have been warning that this American escalation of
hostility against Russia alarmingly increases the likelihood of a U.S.
war with Russia that would become a thermonuclear WWIII.

Others say that the risk of thermonuclear war is not really anything to
worry about because both U.S. and Russian leaders know that a nuclear
war would result in Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.)–the
annihilation of both nations (not to mention possibly the end of the
human race)–and therefore they won’t let nuclear war break out (i.e.,
“Move along, nothing to see here.”)

Some Russia experts living in the United States, in contrast, have
warned [ http://thesaker.is/a-russian-warning/ ] that Russia has the

A bird’s eye view of the vineyard … Bibi and Evelyn likely are behind all this. Their messianic ideology requires that Israel rule the world.

nuclear capability of killing virtually the entire American population
and that:

“If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States will
most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead.”

Russia’s nuclear retaliatory ability is described in “How Russia is
preparing for WWIII” [
http://thesaker.is/how-russia-is-preparing-for-wwiii/ ], in which the

Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50km to 4000km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for Russia to deploy these …

author writes of one Russian missile:

“Take the Kalibr cruise-missile recently seen in the war in Syria. Did
you know that it can be shot from a typical commerical container, like
the ones you will find on trucks, trains or ships? Check out this
excellent video [ at https://youtu.be/mbUU_9bOcnM ] which explains this.

Concern Agat, Russia. The Russian 3M-54 Klub missile system Variants: 3M-54E maquette 3M-54E1 maquette 3M-14E maquette 91RE1 maquette 91RTE2 maquette There a…

“Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50km to
4000km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for
Russia to deploy these cruise missiles right off the US coast in regular
container ships? Or just keep a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela?
This is a system which is so undetectable that the Russians could deploy
it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if
they wanted, and nobody would even see it coming.

“The reality is that the notion that the US could trigger a war against
Russia (or China for that matter) and not suffer the consequences on the
US mainland is absolutely ridiculous.”

How, then, can one explain presumably rational (even if evil) people
such as President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton engaging in
warmongering against Russia that has no actual justification in
International Law, when this warmongering might very well lead to
thermonuclear war with Russia?


I think I know the explanation. It is provided by the following two
articles, each of which is by the same two co-authors.

In 2006 Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations
(whose honorary chairman is David Rockefeller) had an article titled
“The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy” by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press

PRESENT AT THE DESTRUCTION. For almost half a century, the world’s most powerful nuclear states have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured …

]. The authors subsequently defended and elaborated on their 2006
article in a 2013 article in Strategic Studies Quarterly [
http://www18.georgetown.edu/data/people/kal25/publication-69263.pdf ]

STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLYffSPRING 2013 [3 ] The New Era of Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Conflict We have published a series of articles in recent years about …

titled, “The New Era of Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Conflict.”
Because it is more recent, I’ll quote only from the 2013 article. The
authors write:

“First, technological innovation has dramatically improved the ability
of states to launch “counterforce” attacks—that is, military strikes
aimed at disarming an adversary by destroying its nuclear weapons.

“Perhaps most surprising, pairing highly accurate delivery systems with
nuclear weapons permits target strategies that would create virtually no
radioactive fallout, hence, vastly reduced fatalities. For nuclear
analysts weaned on two seeming truths of the Cold War era—that nuclear
arsenals reliably deter attacks via the threat of retaliation, and that
nuclear weapons use is tantamount to mass slaughter—the implications of
the counterforce revolution should be jarring.

“Most Cold War strategists—many of whom are still active in the nuclear
analytical community today—came to instinctively associate nuclear
weapons with stalemate and nuclear use with Armageddon. But nuclear
weapons—like virtually all other weapons—have changed dramatically over
the past four decades. Modern guidance systems permit nuclear planners
to achieve “probabilities of damage” against hardened nuclear targets
that were unheard of during the Cold War. And heightened accuracy also
permits nontraditional targeting strategies that would further increase
the effectiveness of counterforce strikes and greatly reduce casualties.”

Clearly the Russia experts cited above strongly disagree with the
authors of the Foreign Affairs and Strategic Studies Quarterly articles.
I do not claim to know who is right.

But what I believe is not nearly as important as what the American
ruling class and its agents, President Obama and Secretary of State [and
likely soon-to-be President] Clinton believe. They apparently believe
that the Foreign Affairs and Strategic Studies Quarterly articles are
essentially correct–that a U.S. nuclear first strike against Russia
will not lead to the mass slaughter of Americans (or even of Russians)
since “technological innovation” now allows the U.S. to “accurately”
destroy (remember Donald Rumsfeld’s “surgical strikes” in Iraq?)
Russia’s nuclear weapons with “virtually no radioactive fallout” and
“vastly reduced fatalities.”

This is why it is not unreasonable or far-fetched to worry that the
American ruling class is deliberately aiming to get into a WWIII with
Russia (and possibly its ally, China.)

But what is the U.S. ruling class trying to achieve?


One of the main U.S. foreign policy strategists is Zbigniew Brzezinski.
David Rockefeller made Brzezinski the Executive Director of the
Trilateral Commission, which is the sister to the Council on Foreign
Relations for the U.S., Europe and Japan, when the two of them
co-founded it in 1973. In his 2016 article, “Toward a Global
Realignment,” [

G iven all this, a long and painful road toward an initially limited regional accommodation is the only viable option for the United States, Russia, China, and the …

] Brzezinski says:

“Russia’s own future depends on its ability to become a major and
influential nation-state that is part of a unifying Europe.”

About Europe, Brzezinski says in the same article:

“The fourth verity is that Europe is not now and is not likely to become
a global power. But it can play a constructive role in taking the lead
in regard to transnational threats to global wellbeing and even human
survival. Additionally, Europe is politically and culturally aligned
with and supportive of core U.S. interests in the Middle East, and
European steadfastness within NATO is essential to an eventually
constructive resolution of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.”

In other words, in the new world order Europe shall remain under the
economic and political hegemony of the United States ruling class, and
Russia shall be a part of Europe. And since the Russian leaders today
are not cooperating with this “Global Realignment” then some military
force is called for; hence the warmongering. […]

John Spritzler http://newdemocracyworld.org http://www.pdrboston.org

We are building a movement of a majority of Americans for democratic revolution, for an egalitarian world with no rich and no poor and genuine democracy.
Thinking about Revolution (pdf) A pamphlet by John Spritzler and Dave Stratman, with supplementary articles here. Please download, print, share and discuss “Thinking …

(4) Funny how all the architects of the Iraq War endorsed Hillary

From: bronek <bronekc@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Funny how all the architects
of the Iraq War endorsed Hillary Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:45:05 -0400

Architects of the illegal war against Iraq: Paul Wolfowitz, Robert
Kagan, Douglas Feith, Michael Chertoff, Eliot A. Cohen, Max Boot,
Michael Ledeen, John Podhoretz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, David
Frum, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Dov Zakhein, Marc Grossman, Alan

(5) Royal Air Force Pilots given the OK to shoot down Russian jets over
Syria, in defense

From: chris lancenet <chrislancenet@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016
07:12:34 +0900 Subject: Royal Air Force Pilots Ordered To Shoot Down
“Hostile” Russian Jets  Over Syria | Zero Hedge


“We need to protect our pilots but at the same time,” said a Sunday Times source “we’re taking a step closer to war. It will only take one plane to be shot down in an air-to-air battle and the whole landscape will change.”

As the US officially enters the Yemen military campaign, the UK appears
ready and willing to precipiate a catalytic event from which there is no
going back. With relations between Russia and the West at post-Cold War
lows and deteriorating fast, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots have been
given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying
missions over Syria and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The
development comes with warnings that the UK and Russia are now “one step
closer” to being at war, according to the Sunday Times.

While the RAF’s Tornado pilots have been instructed to avoid contact
with Russian aircraft while engaged in missions for Operation Shader,
the codename for the RAF’s anti-Isis work in Iraq and Syria, their
aircraft have been armed with air-to-air missiles and the pilots have
been given the green light to defend themselves if they are threatened
by Russian pilots.

“The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation
where an air-to-air attack is likely to occur — you avoid an area if
there is Russian activity,” an unidentified source from the UK’s
Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. “But if a
pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend
himself. We now have a situation where a single pilot, irrespective of
nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events.”

Where things get tricky is the qualifier “if he believes he is about to
be fired on” – since this makes open engagement a function of threat
evaluation in real time during stressed conditions, the likelihood of an
escalation that could result in two warplanes shooting at each other,
just jumped significantly.

The RAF Tornados aircraft will be armed with heat-seeking Advanced Short
Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Asraams, also called AIM-132 missiles), the
IBT adds. These weapons, which cost £200,000 each, have a longer range
than other air-to-air missiles, allowing RAF pilots to shoot down enemy
aircraft without being targeted themselves.

Providing cover to the largely underreported, if substantial escalation,
according to the Sunday Times report an appraisal carried out by UK
defence officials said: “It took six days for Russia to strike any Isis
targets at all. Their air strikes have included moderate opposition
groups who have been fighting to defend their areas from Isis. Among the
targets hit were three field hospitals.” In the past 24 hours Russia’s
Defence Ministry said that it has continued its air strikes on IS
positions in Hama, Idlib, Latakia and Raqqa. It reported that the
attacks resulted in the “complete destruction” of “53 fortified areas
and strong points with armament and military hardware”, seven ammunition
depots, four field camps of “terrorists”, one command centre, and
artillery and mortar batteries.

Russia has countered that US airstrikes have failed to make much of an
impact on ISIS targets, and as reported last month, a “mistaken” strike
by the US coalition forces killed over 60 Syrian soldiers in a move
Russia accused of being a provocation to war.

The Sunday Times’ report quoted a defence source as saying: “Up till now
RAF Tornados have been equipped with 500lb satellite-guided bombs —
there has been no or little air-to-air threat. But in the last week the
situation has changed. We need to respond accordingly.”

But another source of the original story summarized the severity of the
situation best when he said that “we need to protect our pilots but at
the same time we’re taking a step closer to war. It will only take one
plane to be shot down in an air-to-air battle and the whole landscape
will change.”

(6) NATO military build-up on Russia’s borders


Britain said on Wednesday it will send fighter jets to Romania next year and the United States promised troops, tanks and artillery to Poland in NATO’s biggest military build-up on Russia’s borders since the Cold War.

Wed Oct 26, 2016 | 12:43pm EDT

Britain, U.S. sending planes, troops to deter Russia in the east

Belgium, October 26, 2016. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir

By Robin Emmott and Phil Stewart | BRUSSELS

Britain said on Wednesday it will send fighter jets to Romania next year
and the United States promised troops, tanks and artillery to Poland in
NATO’s biggest military build-up on Russia’s borders since the Cold War.

Germany, Canada and other NATO allies also pledged forces at a defense
ministers meeting in Brussels on the same day two Russian warships armed
with cruise missiles entered the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Denmark,
underscoring East-West tensions.

In Madrid, the foreign ministry said Russia had withdrawn a request to
refuel three warships in Spain’s North African enclave of Ceuta after
NATO allies said they could be used to target civilians in Syria.

The ships were part of an eight-ship carrier battle group – including
Russia’s sole aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov – that is expected to
join around 10 other Russian vessels already off the Syrian coast,
diplomats said.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the troop contributions to
a new 4,000-strong force in the Baltics and eastern Europe were a
measured response to what the alliance believes are some 330,000 Russian
troops stationed on Russia’s western flank near Moscow.

“This month alone, Russia has deployed nuclear-capable Iskander missiles
to Kaliningrad and suspended a weapons-grade plutonium agreement with
the United States,” Stoltenberg said, also accusing Russia of continued
support for rebels in Ukraine.

Those ballistic missiles can hit targets across Poland and the Baltics,
although NATO officials declined to say if Russia had moved nuclear
warheads to Kaliningrad.

NATO’s aim is to make good on a July promise by NATO leaders to deter
Russia in Europe’s ex-Soviet states, after Moscow orchestrated the
annexation of the Crimea peninsula in 2014.

NATO’s plan is to set up four battle groups with a total of some 4,000
troops from early next year, backed by a 40,000-strong rapid-reaction
force, and if need be, follow-on forces.

As part of that, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced a
“battle-ready battalion task force” of about 900 soldiers would be sent
to eastern Poland, as well as another, separate force equipped with
tanks and other heavy equipment to move across eastern Europe.

“It’s a major sign of the U.S. commitment to strengthening deterrence
here,” Carter said.

Britain’s Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said Britain would send an
800-strong battalion to Estonia, supported by French and Danish troops,
starting from May. The United States wants its troops in position by June.

London is also sending Typhoon fighter aircraft to Romania to patrol
around the Black Sea, partly in support of Turkey.

“Although we are leaving the European Union, we will be doing more to
help secure the eastern and southern flanks of NATO,” Fallon said.


Others NATO allies joined the four battle groups led by the United
States, Germany, Britain and Canada to go to Poland, Lithuania, Estonia
and Latvia. Canada said it was sending 450 troops to Latvia, joined by
140 military personnel from Italy.

Germany said it was sending between 400 and 600 troops to Lithuania,
with additional forces from the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Croatia
and Luxembourg.

Stoltenberg said allies’ commitments would be “a clear demonstration of
our transatlantic bond.” Diplomats said it would also send a message to
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has complained that
European allies do not pay their way in the alliance.

For the Kremlin, the U.S.-led alliance’s plans are already too much
given Russia’s grievances at NATO’s expansion eastwards, although
Stoltenberg denied going too far.

But NATO’s troop announcements in the Baltic states and Poland were
partly overshadowed by the dispute about whether Spain should refuel the
Russian warships, which was later resolved by Moscow’s decision to
withdraw its request.

NATO’s tensions with Russia have been building since Crimea and the
West’s decision to impose retaliatory sanctions.

But the breakdown of a U.S-Russia brokered ceasefire in Syria on Oct. 3,
followed by U.S. accusations that Russia has used cyber attacks to
disrupt the presidential election, have signaled a worsening of ties.

Even before the break down of the Syrian ceasefire, Russian President
Vladimir Putin suspended a treaty with Washington on cleaning up
weapons-grade plutonium, signaling he was willing to use nuclear
disarmament as a new bargaining chip in disputes with the United States
over Ukraine and Syria.

(Additional reporting by Sabine Siebold; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

(7) Neocons enacted 9/11 to bring chaos to MidEast, destroying enemies
of Israel – Paul Craig Roberts


Why do we hear only of the “humanitarian crisis in Aleppo” and not of the humanitarian crisis everywhere else in Syria where the evil that rules in Washington has unleashed its ISIL mercenaries to …

The Real Humanitarian Crisis Is Not Aleppo. The Crisis is Washington
Loosing its ISIS Mercenaries

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, October 18, 2016

Why do we hear only of the “humanitarian crisis in Aleppo” and not of
the humanitarian crisis everywhere else in Syria where the evil that
rules in Washington has unleashed its ISIL mercenaries to slaughter the
Syrian people?  Why do we not hear about the humanitarian crisis in
Yemen where the US and its Saudi Arabian vassal are slaughtering Yemeni
women and children?  Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in
Libya where Washington destroyed a country leaving chaos in its place?
Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, ongoing now for
13 years, or the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan now 15 years old?

The answer is that the crisis in Aleppo is the crisis of Washington
losing its ISIL mercenaries to the Syrian army and Russian air force.
The jihadists sent by Obama and the killer Hillary (“We came, we saw, he
died”) to destroy Syria are being themselves destroyed.  The Obama
regime and the Western presstitutes are trying to save the jihadists by
covering them in the blanket of “humanitarian crisis.”

Such hypocrisy is standard fare for Washington.  If the Obama regime
gave a hoot about “humanitarian crisis,” the Obama regime would not have
orchestrated humanitarian crisis in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and

We are in the middle of a presidential campaign in the US and no one has
asked why the US is determined to overthrow a democratically elected
Syrian government that is supported by the Syrian people.

No one has asked why the White House Fool is empowered to remove the
president of Syria by siccing US-supplied jihadists, which the
presstitutes misrepresent as “moderate rebels,” on the Syrian people.

Washington, of course, has no acceptable answer to the question, and
that is why the question is not asked.

The answer to the question is that Washington’s strategy for
destabilizing Iran and then the Muslim provinces of the Russian
Federation, former Soviet central Asia, and the Muslim province of China
is to replace stable governments with the chaos of jihadism.

Iraq, Libya, and Syria had stable secular societies in which the
government’s strong hand was used to prevent sectarian strife between
Muslim sects. By overthrowing these secular governments and the current
effort to overthrow Assad, Washington released the chaos of terrorism.

There was no terrorism in the Middle East until Washington brought it
there with invasions, bombings, and torture.

Jihadists such as those that Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi
appeared in Syria when the British Parliament and the Russian government
blocked Obama’s planned invasion of Syria. As Washington was prevented
from directly attacking Syria, Washington used mercenaries.  The
prostitutes that pretend to be an American media obliged Washington with
the propaganda that the jihadist terrorists are Syrian democrats
rebelling against “the Assad dictatorship.”  This transparant and
blatant lie has been repeated so many times that it now is confused with

Syria has no connection whatsoever to Washington’s original
justification for introducing violence into the Middle East.  The
original justification was 9/11 which was used to invade Afghanistan on
the fabrication that the Taliban was shielding Osama bin Laden, the
“mastermind,” who at the time was dying of renal failure in a Pakistani
hospital.  Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset who was used against the
Soviets in Afghanistan.  He was not the perpetrator of 9/11. And most
certainly, neither were the Taliban.

But the Western presstitutes covered up for the Bush regime’s lie, and
the public was deceived with the phrase that we must “defeat them abroad
before they attack us at home.”

Of course, Muslims were not going to attack us at home. If Muslims are a
threat, why does the US government keep bringing so many of them here as
refugees from Washington’s wars against Muslims?

9/11 was the neoconservatives “new Pearl Harbor” that they wrote they
needed in order to launch their wars in the Middle East. George W.
Bush’s first Secretary of the Treasury said that the topic of Bush’s
first cabinet meeting was the invasion of Iraq.  This was prior to 9/11.
In other words, Washington’s wars in the Middle East were planned
prior to 9/11.

The neoconservatives are zionists. By reducing the Middle East to chaos
they achieve both of their goals.  They remove organized opposition to
Israeli expansion, and they create jihadism that can be used to
destabilize countries such as Russia, Iran, and China that are in the
way of their exercise of unilateral power, which, they believe, the
Soviet collapse bequeathed to the “indispensable nation,” the USA.

Osama bin Laden, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, was dying, not directing a
terror war against the US from a cave in Afghanistan. The Taliban were
focused on establishing their rule in Afghanistan, not on attacking the
West. After blowing up weddings, funerals, and childrens’ soccer games,
Washington moved on to Iraq.  There was no sign of Iraqi beligerance
toward the US. UN weapons inspectors said that there were no weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq, but Washington did not hear.  The whores who
comprise the American media helped the Bush regime create the image of a
nuclear mushroom cloud going up over America if the US did not invade Iraq.

Iraq had no nuclear weapons and everyone knew it, but facts were
irrelevant.  There was an agenda at work, an undeclared agenda.  To
advance its agenda that the government did not dare reveal, the
government used fear.  “We have to kill them over there before they kill
us over here.”

So Iraq, a stable, progressive country was reduced to ruins.

Libya was next. Gaddafi would not join Washington’s Africa Command.
Moreover, China was developing the oil fields in eastern Libya.
Washington was already troubled by Russia’s presence in the
Mediterranean and did not want China there also.  So Gaddafi had to go.

Next Assad was set up with faked evidence that he had used chemical
weapons against the rebellion that Washington had started.  No one
believed the transparant Washington lie, not even the British
Parliament.  Unable to find support to cover an invasion, Killary the
Psychopath sent the jihadists Washington used to destroy Libya to
overthrow Assad.

The Russians, who until this point had been so naive and gullible as to
trust Washington, finally figured out that the instability that
Washington was brewing was directed at them.  The Russian government
decided that Syria was their red line and, at the request of the Syrian
government, intervened against the Washington-supported jihadists.

Washington is outraged and is now threatening to commit yet another
criminal violation of the Nuremberg Standard with blatant aggression
against Syria. Such an ill-advised step would bring Washington into
military conflict with Russia and by implication with China.  Before
Europeans enable Washington to initiate such a dangerous conflict, they
had best consider the warning from Sergey Karaganov, a member of the
Russian Foreign Ministry’s Foreign Policy and Defense council: “Russia
will never again fight on its own territory. If NATO initiates an
encroachment against a nuclear power like ourselves, NATO will be punished.”

That the government of the United States is criminally insane should
frighten every person on earth.  Killary-Hillary is commited to conflict
with Russia.  Regardless,  Obama, the presstitutes, and the Democratic
and Republican establishments are doing everything in their power to put
into the Oval Office the person who will maximize conflict with Russia.

The life of the planet is in the hands of the criminally insane. This is
the real humanitarian crisis.


Lt. General Michael Flynn, director of the Pentagon’s Defense
Intelligence Agency stated in an interview that the creation of ISIS was
“a willful Washington decision.”  See, for example:

https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/   Also:

The US didn’t interfere with the rise of anti-government jihadist groups in Syria that finally degenerated into Islamic State, claims the former head of America’s …


From the first sudden, and quite dramatic, appearance of the fanatical Islamic group known as ISIS which was largely unheard of until a year ago, on the world’s stage …

The DIA warned that ISIS would result in a Salafist principality over
parts of Iraq and Syria.

Created Date: 5/18/2015 10:37:52 AM

The warning went unheeded as the neoconservative Obama regime saw
ISIS as a strategic asset to be used against Syria.

(8) Erdogan complicates US plans for Syia, after US-backed Coup attempt
– Israel Shamir

From: “Israel Shamir adam@israelshamir.net [shamireaders]” Date: Sat, 29
Oct 2016 10:00:32 +0300 Subject: [shamireaders] Erdogan consolidates his
power, by Israel Shamir


TrackBack URI

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: